3 ms·

I would love to be able to work with the people of China and Russia as you’re suggesting, I think the great mass of people in all these countries would, but you

I would love to be able to work with the people of China and Russia as you’re suggesting, I think the great mass of people in all these countries would, but you’re blurring the populations of the countries and the strategic plotting of the national leaders. I wonder if you might be making the terrible mistake that almost all of us seem to make, of seeing your country from the intimate perspective of family, friends and ordinary people living their lives, and others through the words and actions of national politicians. I think the leaders of all of these countries are threats to the world, and not because they necessarily have plans of expanding their empire across the globe, but because their primary goal is to hold power in their own country which requires theatre to the populace and flows of wealth to their core supporters. China doesn’t need to retake Taiwan, there are already Chinese people there doing just fine, Russia doesn’t need to threaten Ukraine, US doesn’t need its military practically everywhere, but the leaders in each of those countries can’t back down on any of those things or their person hold on power is over

chii 5y ago
The leader exists because the (majority of) people implicitly allow it. The calculus of whether to resist and /or topple the leader is whether the individual is worse off without doing so. In China, most people are better off with the current leadership (than the previous), and the economic prospects is at least looking good for them. They wouldn't want to rock the boat obviously. So despite the fact that the people of china is peaceful and willing to cooperate unlike the CCP's external stance, they do hold responsibility for the actions of their leaders. I take the same stance with the USA's actions under trump - this is in no way targeted at any particular country.
- monkeycantype 5y ago
  I suppose I agree with you. But we’re all at fault here. We’re born into a world with existing power structures that know how to defend themselves, that know the amount of carrot and stick that will this dismal compromise together. There’s no obvious way to change them, and by the time you’re big enough to try anything you have people you love, and a sense of what you risk. In the west we have nice memories of peaceful marches changing things. Even people who won’t discuss Tiananmen, know about the cultural revolution, about the millions that died in the civil war, and no illusions as to the danger of trying to change China

chii 5y ago

The leader exists because the (majority of) people implicitly allow it. The calculus of whether to resist and /or topple the leader is whether the individual is worse off without doing so. In China, most people are better off with the current leadership (than the previous), and the economic prospects is at least looking good for them. They wouldn't want to rock the boat obviously. So despite the fact that the people of china is peaceful and willing to cooperate unlike the CCP's external stance, they do hold responsibility for the actions of their leaders. I take the same stance with the USA's actions under trump - this is in no way targeted at any particular country.

monkeycantype 5y ago
I suppose I agree with you. But we’re all at fault here. We’re born into a world with existing power structures that know how to defend themselves, that know the amount of carrot and stick that will this dismal compromise together. There’s no obvious way to change them, and by the time you’re big enough to try anything you have people you love, and a sense of what you risk. In the west we have nice memories of peaceful marches changing things. Even people who won’t discuss Tiananmen, know about the cultural revolution, about the millions that died in the civil war, and no illusions as to the danger of trying to change China